<p>To echo jay, my mom’s an immigrant and I speak with many of her relatives in Spain and England. They’re well aware of what’s going on just as many of us are well aware of the marriage equality laws going into effect over there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>An emergency contact isn’t a legal relationship. A fianc</p>
<p>
Perhaps on CC, but most Americans aren’t aware of the European laws, are they? 
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you stop labeling all the countries in the Middle East as one big amorphous blob? You wouldn’t do that with European countries, would you?</p>
<p>Also, most people’s view of America in Pakistan at least is generally favorable. They don’t agree with all of the decisions with the US, but they don’t hate them. The protests you see are biases of American media. It makes it easier to justify sending troops there.</p>
<p>And does the Arab Spring not ring a bell?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right. The behavior wasn’t justified and the hospital was reprimanded. However, the point is, the staff listened to the bio family. If they lived in a state where their marriage was fully recognized then the staff would have no reason to doubt whether or not the partner should have been there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many =/= most.</p>
<p>
[quote]
An emergency contact isn’t a legal relationship. A fianc</p>
<p>Yes, but when was the ruling of DOMA made again?</p>
<p>
Good thing you can’t control who can discuss marriage equality. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
Some Americans aren’t even aware of what DOMA is. :)</p>
<p>@ Niquii: No. But it’d be nice if the people discussing it knew what the issues at stake were. Again, as LasMa said, and per Romani’s last post, that’s what this is all about.</p>
<p>[laughing and face-palming]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was a joke. But people know what’s going on.</p>
<p>I think the Missouri hospital was fully within their legal right to kick him out. The Supreme Court ruled that it was up to the states to decide upon the issue of gay marriage, and Missouri had decided to ban it.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I don’t agree with the decision on a moral platform.</p>
<p>
Hey now, don’t bite. I argue those points pretty often myself 
I didn’t mean to come off the wrong way.
My point is that the violent protests in the Middle East reflect a very small minority of people in the Middle East.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. They weren’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quoted for emphasis.</p>
<p>I totally thought that hospitals didn’t have to let non-direct family members visit.</p>
<p>Sorry if I was wrong.</p>
<p>
I don’t think, however, that this is a good argument for gay marriage simply because that was not the main issue here. The issue is that the patient’s choice should have been respected, and, as the hospital was reprimanded, it seems like the law dealt out the punishment justly, whether or not the law legally recognized a marriage or not.</p>
<p>Repede, “non-direct family members?” Define please.</p>
<p>Direct family member is a spouse, parent, sibling, or child.</p>
<p>stressedout, I think the problem is that if this had been a hetero couple, the hospital staff never would have thought to question the decision of the patient and his legal husband. That’s what makes it discrimination, which is illegal.</p>
<p>^ Presumably because they would be married.</p>
<p>Repede, so the patient didn’t have the right to designate who he wanted?</p>
<p>Missouri doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage though?</p>
<p>The real problem is this hetero couple turned into a homo couple. O.o
</p>
<p>
If the patient isn’t able to do so…I would start going down the list.</p>